<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Clinical diagnosis of hepatitis E viral (HEV) infection mainly relies on serological assays, and the current status of misdiagnoses regarding HEV infection is uncertain. In this study, patients with acute HEV infection were tested for anti-HEV IgM and IgG, a HEV antigen (Ag), and viral loads (HEV RNA). Serology was performed using four commercial HEV ELISA kits: Wantai, Kehua, Lizhu, and Genelabs IgM and IgG. The HEV RNA was detected using RT-PCR assays. The sensitivities of different kits for anti-HEV IgM ranged from 82.6% to 86%. Each kit for anti-HEV IgM was highly specific (97.8–100%). The sensitivities of all kits to detect anti-HEV IgG with (87.2–91.9%) had a substantial agreement, but the Kehua and Genelabs tests were more specific than the Wantai and Lizhu tests. The Wantai tests for the HEV Ag and HEV RNA were also important for acute HEV infections (Kappa = 0.787). Furthermore, a total of 6.98% of HEV infections were positive for HEV RNA but negative for both the HEV Ag and anti-HEV antibodies of IgM and IgG classes. Our findings demonstrate that the diagnosis of hepatitis E may be missed if only serological assays are used. Thus, a combination of serological and nucleic acid testing provides the optimal sensitivity and specificity to the diagnostic process.</p>
</abstract>

Clinical diagnosis of hepatitis E viral (HEV) infection mainly relies on serological assays, and the current status of misdiagnoses regarding HEV infection is uncertain. In this study, patients with acute HEV infection were tested for anti-HEV IgM and IgG, a HEV antigen (Ag), and viral loads (HEV RNA). Serology was performed using four commercial HEV ELISA kits: Wantai, Kehua, Lizhu, and Genelabs IgM and IgG. The HEV RNA was detected using RT-PCR assays. The sensitivities of different kits for anti-HEV IgM ranged from 82.6% to 86%. Each kit for anti-HEV IgM was highly specific (97.8–100%). The sensitivities of all kits to detect anti-HEV IgG with (87.2–91.9%) had a substantial agreement, but the Kehua and Genelabs tests were more specific than the Wantai and Lizhu tests. The Wantai tests for the HEV Ag and HEV RNA were also important for acute HEV infections (Kappa = 0.787). Furthermore, a total of 6.98% of HEV infections were positive for HEV RNA but negative for both the HEV Ag and anti-HEV antibodies of IgM and IgG classes. Our findings demonstrate that the diagnosis of hepatitis E may be missed if only serological assays are used. Thus, a combination of serological and nucleic acid testing provides the optimal sensitivity and specificity to the diagnostic process.

Performance Evaluation of Different Commercial Serological Kits for Diagnosis of Acute Hepatitis E Viral Infection

Polish Journal of Microbiology

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Clinical diagnosis of hepatitis E viral (HEV) infection mainly relies on serological assays, and the current status of misdiagnoses regarding HEV infection is...

Performance Evaluation of Different Commercial Serological Kits for Diagnosis of Acute Hepatitis E Viral Infection

Article Category: original-paper

Published Online: Jun 04, 2020

Page range: 217 - 222

Received: Mar 07, 2020

Accepted: May 09, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2020-025

Keywords
hepatitis E virus, serological markers, diagnostic performance, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, misdiagnosis

© 2020 Qiang Zhang et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Performance Evaluation of Different Commercial Serological Kits for Diagnosis of Acute Hepatitis E Viral Infection

Article Category: original-paper

Published Online: Jun 04, 2020

Page range: 217 - 222

Received: Mar 07, 2020

Accepted: May 09, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2020-025

Keywordshepatitis E virus, serological markers, diagnostic performance, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, misdiagnosis

© 2020 Qiang Zhang et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Keywords
hepatitis E virus, serological markers, diagnostic performance, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, misdiagnosis